Welcome to European-American University  
You are not Logged in! Log in here.

Key routes to a degree:

Home  >Policies >Quality Audit Manual

Quality Audit Manual


Preamble
European-American University is committed to academic quality and to establishing appropriate procedures and mechanisms to ensure and enhance this quality. The aim is to achieve an organisational culture that values and is committed to continual enhancement of quality.

The purpose of quality audit is not to assume absolute academic standards, or a unique or prescriptive approach to quality assurance. The functions of the audit are to:
  • consider and review the mechanisms for monitoring and enhancing the academic quality and standards which are necessary for achieving the stated aims and objectives
  • comment on the extent to which procedures in place in the University are applied effectively
  • comment on the extent to which procedures in place reflect good practice in maintaining quality
  • identify and commend good practice in regard to the maintenance and enhancement of academic standards

The auditors will also liaise with other individuals and organisations in matters relating to quality in the higher education sector.

In the pursuit of these purposes, the auditors will build up a body of knowledge and expertise in the fields of quality assurance and enhance in higher education, and shall be able to act as a source of advice and information on these issues.

The auditors may investigate and comment on any policies, mechanisms or procedures that they believe affect academic quality, with particular focus on the following areas:
  • quality assurance in the design, approval, monitoring and evaluation of courses and programs of study
  • quality assurance in teaching, learning and assessment, including procedures for selecting teaching and assessment methods
  • quality assurance in relation to the appointment, development and performance of academic and other staff who contribute to the teaching and research functions
  • quality assurance in research, including it support and evaluation, and particularly its relationship with university teaching
  • quality assurance in listening to clients and taking account of the views of students, of external examiners, of professional bodies, and of employers in respect of academic matters

1. Quality Audit - Introduction
This manual serves two purposes:

1 - it is a handbook for colleagues, academic as well as administrative, part of the group of auditors. It serves as a useful resource of reference both before and during a Quality Audit. It also provides information to students and the general public on the University's quality assurance procedures.

2 - it serves as a source of reference for colleagues in the department to be audited, containing a reminder of the documents that will be asked for prior to the audit, clarifies the audit cycle and contains a copy of any questionnaires to be completed.

Auditors will be drawn from a pool made up of academic and administrative colleagues from across the institution. This ensures that knowledge from other departments can be brought to bear on the audit of a specific department.

The emphasis shall be on supporting departments in highlighting areas where further consideration is required. The QA must be viewed by the department to be audited as a constructive experience, providing a mechanism for disseminating good practice, as well as a back-up control of departmental procedures.

Each department should undergo a full Quality Audit at least once every 5 years. The co-ordination of quality audit and external accreditation processes where applicable should be arranged so that unnecessary duplication does not occur.  In addition, a modified form of audit may take place in the case of very small departments.

Since the primary operation of the University is via distance learning and its functions are diversified, most audits will also take place at a distance. Means for both synchronous (telephone, teleconference) and asynchronous (email, use of a secure area of the University's ) communication will be provided.

On-campus programs will be subject to separate audit by the partner institutions concerned and any external accrediting bodies.

2. Quality Audit Cycle
a - The schedule for audits is decided upon internally at Academic Board level.

b - Departments are informed of an audit at an early stage, usually at least 6 months prior to audit, and shall draw up an Internal Review Questionnaire to aid their preparation.

c - The Audit Panel shall be chosen from the available pool of auditors chosen from across the institution and including external experts where applicable. A Chair and a Secretary to the Panel will be appointed, and agree with the department a timetable running up to the day.

d - The Audit Panel receives the Department submission documents and meets in person, via email, videoconference or forum discussion prior to the day of the Audit.

e - The Audit usually takes place within one week, although may be extended depending on the locations, time zones and external commitments of Panel members.

f - The Audit Panel agrees their report and the department is requested to provide an Action Plan. At this stage the department is also invited to highlight any factual inaccuracies.

g - The report and Action Plan are forwarded to the Academic Board.

h - The Academic Board considers the report and Action Plan and determines any necessary action, particularly with a view to identifying issues which may assist other departments.

i - Not less than 6 months and not more than 18 months into the review cycle, the Academic Board will ask the head of department to complete a new Internal Review Questionnaire, and to prepare a report on any problem areas from the Action Plan, with particular emphasis on objectives which have not been achievable. A representative - or more - of the audit pool will go through this process together with the head of department, and provide a separate report to the Academic Board.

3. Audit focus
The main focus of the audit is upon the systems and procedures used by departments in their dealings with present and potential students. The main objective is to make these as effective and efficient as possible in order to reduce maximally administrative requirements whilst at the same time maintaining sound and reliable procedures, which support the claim of the University to offer high quality learning and teaching. In the following will be identified key areas of focus and their characteristics. These are provided as a guide to potential areas of discussion during the audit. Departments would be advised to consider and discuss these issues in advance to the audit, in order that they may identify any aspects of their procedures which should be discussed in more detail. The purpose of the audit is to assist and support departments, not to 'find fault'.

The Internal Review Questionnaire - as well as the Quality Audit Manual - focuses on the following issues:
  • Admissions
  • Course and module design, approval and review
  • Staff development
  • Postgraduate research students
  • Student support
  • External examiners and examining
  • Careers advice

In support of this, the additional documentation requested of the department will seek to provide evidence of practice within the department in these areas. It is these documents that will provide the audit team the particular areas for discussion. Auditors will be sensible to the individual nature of departments and the discussion questions/areas are not pre-set. By the same token, the audit team may wish to take up matters not touched upon within the pages of this guide.

The Internal Review Questionnaire seeks YES/NO answers, and will assist the auditors in understanding the department's policy and procedures in each area. Auditors should also seek to ascertain that described policies and procedures are being put to use, and that they actually work. The auditors should assure themselves that they have received sufficient evidence to base a judgement on.

4. Guidelines for Quality Auditors
Quality Audits operate from the view that departments are responsible for setting and maintaining their own academic quality and standards, with due reference to any policy brought down from Academic Board level. The main purpose of the audit is simply to ask departments how they make sure that their own standards are adequate. Auditors will be expected to look for examples of commendable practice to be shared with other departments, and to identify any areas where improvements may be useful. The audit shall be concerned with procedures and documentation, and not with the actual teaching taking place.

Auditors may think of the process of audit as follows:
  • What are you trying to do?
  • Why are you trying to do it?
  • How are you doing it?
  • Why are you doing it that way?
  • What do you think are the benefits of this way?
  • How do you know that it works?
  • How can you improve?

Each audit team will count the following members:
  • Chair - senior member of academic staff in another department
  • Up to three academic colleagues from across the institution or invited external experts
  • An experienced administrator
  • A student member (where possible)

It is obvious that the audit team will not be able to cover all the potential areas of enquiry in the time allotted, and hence selection must take place. It is perfectly acceptable for the audit team to suggest 'lines of enquiry' in advance. The Internal Review Questionnaire would normally suggest potential lines of enquiry.

Even if members of the audit team are well acquainted with the department to be audited, it should be remembered that the audit should be carried out with a degree of formality and objectivity. However, the primary aim is not to seek and find fault, but to identify areas of commendable practice, details of which can be communicated to other departments, as well as areas where the department can be encouraged to make improvements.

It would be normally useful if the head of department were given the opportunity to discuss areas which he/she wishes to bring to the attention of the Panel. The head of department should be also invited to bring up areas where issues have been identified by the department, but where the head of department feels more work needs to be done.

The elements of the audit should include:

A. The Audit Panel members each receive a copy of the documentation not less than 2 weeks prior to the audit. The Panel individually assesses the documents to ascertain any features to commend, any omissions or indications of areas where the documentation is unclear or may lead to a specific line of enquiry.

B. A pre-audit meeting of the Audit Panel members should take place ca. 1 week before the audit. This will give the Panel an opportunity to discuss areas which will be discussed on the day, and will also provide some clarity about the roles of Panel members.

C. The audit itself, allowing the Panel to interact with the head of department, faculty, and the students, to the extent this is possible within the distance learning format.

D. After the audit, the Panel provides preliminary verbal or written feedback to the head of department.

E. The Panel Secretary produces a draft written report identifying:

  • developments since last audit
  • commendable systems / procedures
  • areas where further action is:
  • essential
  • advisable
  • desirable

F. The draft report is agreed by the Panel, or the Chair on its behalf.

G. The report is given over to the head of department for comment on the factual accuracy, although matters of judgement will not be altered, unless they were reached as a result of factual inaccuracy.

H. The final report will be signed off by the Chair of the Panel.

I. At this stage the department will be asked to respond to the report. It would be desirable for all in the department (staff and students) to have a chance to have a say at this stage. A response, to include an Action Plan, addressing areas identified in the report and acknowledged by the department will be forwarded to the Academic Board.

J. Panel members will be provided with the report and the response, giving them the opportunity to forward any comments to the Academic Board.

K. The Academic Board shall decide whether a follow-up report and revised Internal Review Questionnaire shall be requested from the department.

L. The Academic Board will then schedule a mid-cycle follow-up audit which will include the Internal Review Questionnaire, but will also require a report from the head of department regarding developments since the audit. The Academic Board will appoint a small number of auditors to consider the documents and - where applicable - to meet with the head of department face-to-face or by teleconference, email, closed forum discussion or videoconference.

5. Role of Panel Secretary
The Secretary is at the center of the process. Once the schedule for a session is confirmed, the Secretary will be appointed from the pool of auditors. The Secretary will be a member of the Panel, and will be expected to carry out the following tasks:

Before the audit:
  • agreeing with the department a timetable for the audit, having regard to any external commitments held by its members
  • keeping the Chair of the Panel informed of progress made
  • acting as a source of advice for the department in preparation for the audit
  • ensuring that the arrangements for the audit have been completed by the department
  • receiving and distribution to the Panel of documentation from the department not later than 2 weeks prior to the audit
  • scheduling and attending the pre-audit meeting ca. 1 week prior to the audit

On the week of the audit:
  • preparing minutes of the events of the week and collating this information from other members of the Panel where they are geographically disparate and communicating independently
  • ensuring that the Panel's judgements in respect of essential, advisable and desirable steps to be taken by the department are recorded
  • participating in Panel discussions

After the audit:
  • preparing the report in the requisite format
  • asking the Panel for comments on the draft report and amending as appropriate
  • asking the department to review the draft report for factual inaccuracies and amending in accordance with this
  • sending the completed report to the department, requesting a response including an action plan for any areas they perceive to need development
  • having received the reply from the department, providing the report and the reply to the Academic Board and to Panel members
  • following up with the department for a response where none has been received; where a response is not readily forthcoming - and this would usually be taken to mean within 4 weeks of the department receiving the request - the Secretary shall be responsible for reporting the lack of response to the Academic Board

6. Essential documents for Quality Audit
Departments are requested to submit to the Panel a collection of essential documents not later than 2 weeks prior to the audit. These documents should be existing working documents, and not documents prepared particularly for the audit. (Given the nature of the University having been subject to a great deal of recent change including the introduction of online programs, it is understood that some of these documents are not yet available, and that these will be coming on stream over the following months.)

The Panel will require:

A. The department's most recent Internal Review Questionnaire
B. A copy of the last full audit report and action plan (where applicable)
C. List of courses
D. Student numbers for each course on the list
E. Department organogram
F. Description of system for course planning, development and review
G. Course submission documentation procedure
H. Copies of course review reports
I. Samples of Student Handbooks
J. Evidence of student feedback
K. Evidence that student feedback is adequately addressed
L. Description of the tutorial options available to students (where applicable)
M. Procedure for handling complaints
N. Copy of staff development plan
O. External examiners' reports and department response to recommendations therein
P. Evidence of the department's approach to quality control and assurance
 
Please refer also to:
Appendix A, 'Quality Audit Report Form'